Third Time Around -- A History of the Pro-Life Movement fromthe First Century to the Present by George Grant. Wolgemuthand Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. 1749 Mallory Lane, Suite 110,Brentwood TN 37027. 224 pages.

The third issue of TBR noted that the slaughter of innocentchildren (whether preborn or new-born) is nothing new. It hasgone on, here and there, for thousands of years. Likewise, thepro-life movement is nothing new. It is thousands of years old,as old as Christianity itself. Also noted in that issue was that,when earlier generation of Christians saw this horror, this evil,and saw the magnitude of the injustice, they were thoroughlyoutraged and took an active and uncompromising stand inproportion to their degree of outrage. (Please notice that theroot word of "outrage" is "rage"). We also asserted that suchresponsiveness on the part of earlier generations of Christianshad to do with why the Lord our God has not yet poured Hiscup of wrath out on the world, in general, and America inparticular.

All the above points are documented in George Grant's fine book,as we will show.

Abortion did not first become an issue in the U.S. in 1973 with theRoe v. Wade fiat. Nor did it first become an issue here in 1967when the very first state (California) loosened its restrictions on thisevil. Abortion was committed in this country at least as early as themid-1800's. When Christian Americans were aroused they put astop to it. Half a century later the forces of darkness, evil, and deathreared their ugly heads and, once again, children began to be sacrificed.

During both these earlier death movements in the U.S., the governmentacknowledged that abortion was illegal. The laws on the books prohibitedthe crime. Abortion was not being committed under governmentsponsorship. It happened simply because government "looked theother way".

When the news media shed light on the evil and brought it to thepublic's attention, our (fairly recent) ancestors' wrath was so severethat the government was compelled to enforce the existing lawsprohibiting abortion. It must be remembered that this was a great,Christian nation in those days. It must be understood that this wasbefore the left-wingers won the cultural revolution and had come todominate the media. Today not one major, daily newspaper is onour side. Yet, in those days every news medium, every editor, sidedwith life and justice. Not one supported the baby-killers(gasp! Oh, my Brockhoeft, shouldn't you tone down the shrillnessof your rhetoric a little? After all, if you will be a little more politeyou might reach more people!)

No, I should not mellow out, because, in the first place, how manytimes do I have to tell you that it is ineffective and wrong to opposeabortion politely? And secondly, I'm not necessarily interested inreaching the greatest possible number of people. If necessary, I'dmuch rather reach a smaller number of the right kind of people --men who are still capable of passion in their opposition to this satanicabomination. And thirdly, can I, as a Christian, let secular journalistsfrom our nation's past outdo me in my rhetorical language today?

What kind of rhetoric did the mainstream American media(even the N.Y.T.!) use against abortionists in those days?

George Grant has documented it for us in Third Time Around.

They called abortionists "demon doctors", "human fiends","professional murderers", "child-destroyers", and "monsters ofiniquity". Secular journalists called abortion "the crime againstnature", "the evil of the age", "a damnable deed", "the curse ofAmerican society", "a long record of infamy", "child-murder inMassachusetts", and "the terrible sins...". The bold rhetoric usedby non-religious journalists earlier in this century makes today'sChristian, pro-life writers look like a bunch of ambiguous sissies.

We owe George Grant a debt of gratitude. He has given us a verygood book. With a few minor corrections it could be a great book.

Third Time Around is highly recommended by TBR. You mustread it. Nevertheless, we all make mistakes; and our brother Georgeis no exception. As the sub-title implies, this work is a history bookchronicling nearly 2,000 years of Christian, pro-life activism. Georgewisely wants to familiarize us with our history so that we will be ableto apply yesterday's lessons today. Unfortunately, George has notperfectly learned these lessons yet, himself.

Please heed this warning: as I point out the mistakes in ThirdTime Around I might sound very severe with George. Pleasedon't take it that way. It is not my intention to ridicule Georgeto death. I do not think George is either cowardly or insincere,unlike my assessment of some other pro-life leaders. I like George.I'm not just saying that to be solicitous, either. You know me betterthan that by now. Somewhere in the book of Proverbs it says: "The kisses of an enemy may be profuse, butfaithful are the wounds of a friend."

That's it right there. I mean only to smite George as a friend,to help him. There are some false leaders whom I would bewilling to "destroy" (not kill, of course) by humiliating themwith my pen. George doesn't deserve that. He's okay. No,I'm talking about the kind of false friends who apply such blatantinconsistencies against the babies, such obvious discrimination,that they must have known, beforehand, they were making mistakesin their manifestly insincere political posturing. No, I'm talking onlyabout those who try to hid their cowardice behind a veil of false virtueand who are so defiant in their error (not their stand) that they willnot likely ever be able to admit they were wrong. So there may benothing we can do to help them. These people carry self-inflictedwounds so grievous that they may now never be able to fullyrecover and be effective.

So let me tell you something. I would not feel bad at all if, thoroughterrible ridicule flowing from my pen, I "destroyed" these false friends,these faint-hearted men. Because if these "leaders" are going to insiston promoting lukewarmness and inappropriate pacifism among theirfollowers, then I'd feel like I'd done a good thing if I could make themgo home and stay there. Preborn babies then might actually be lessendangered. In support of that, look up Deuteronomy 20:8. Thesefaint-hearted men, by expressing willingness, even eagerness, tocompromise with the enemies of our country have, in effect, becomeour enemies.

Does that last statement sound too severe? Please read on. Doyou want to know a couple of stout-hearted, Christian men whoagree with me? Theodore Roosevelt and George Grant. It's rightthere in George's Third Time Around, on page 116! George offersa 1917 quote from Teddy Roosevelt, who was speaking of sucha time as we now face:

The world is at this moment passing through one of thoseterrible periods of convulsion when the souls of men andof nations are tried as by fire. Woe to the man or the nationthat at such a time stands as once Laodicea stood; as thepeople of ancient Meroz stood, when they dared not come tothe help of the Lord against the mighty. In such a crisis themoral weakling is the enemy of the right, the enemy of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Emphasis added)

Well? How about it? I feel certain that I'm not using Roosevelt'squote out of his intended context. Hopefully, brother George won'tfeel I'm misapplying his intended use of the quote. However, if hefeels I have done him an injustice in my citation of his use ofPresident Roosevelt's quote, I'd be very curious to know exactlyhow he was meaning to use it.

Two interesting points in Teddy Roosevelt's statement are hisreferences to Laodicea and "moral weaklings". Laodicea, you mayrecall, is the Biblical symbol of lukewarmness which was, therefore,on the verge of being rejected by the Lord Jesus (see Rev. 3:14-19).

Concerning the reference to moral weaklings, some of TBR'syounger readers may misunderstand Roosevelt's meaning. In his daythe word moral had a second meaning in addition to the way wenormally use it today. By "moral" he was not referring to principlesof right and wrong. The other (older) definition he was using is"courageous" or "spirited". The word is seldom used that way today,but some good dictionaries still carry this other definition. Yet, fora clearer idea, look up "demoralize". So Teddy Roosevelt was nottalking about immoral men, but demoralized men, irresolutemen, men unwilling to confront injustice and oppression aggressively;in a word: cowards.

Before we start picking on brother George, let's look at some quotesfrom Third Time Around which show that earlier generations of AmericanChristians held to a belief which TBR has asserted all along: that unlessthe Church repents and stops abortionists from killing babies, our nation isdoomed by God.

From an 1869 general assembly of Presbyterian churches:

This assembly regards the destruction by parents of their ownoffspring, before birth, with abhorrence, as a crime againstGod and against nature;...we hereby warn those that are guiltyof this crime that, except they repent, they cannot inherit eternallife. We also exhort those that have been called to preach thegospel, and all who love purity and truth, and who would avert thejust judgments of Almighty God from the nation, that they nolonger remain silent, or tolerant of these things....From an 1868 Conference of Congregationalist Churches: ...those who best know the facts and bearing of this crimedeclare it to be a greater evil, more demoralizing anddestructive, than either intemperance, slavery, or war itself. ...we have come to consent to customs and habits that willdestroy us as a people unless arrested betimes.

From evangelist John Todd in 1867: Murder is, of course heinous of its own accord. But themurder of a mother's own flesh within the womb is a crimeagainst heaven that is the very essence of sin and inimicablewith the Christian religion. Left alone, such a crime would sunderthe whole fabric of our families, of our communities, of ourchurches, of our markets and industries, and finally of our nation.

I'm sorry to have to be the one to take George apart, but now it'stime to point out his few (though substantial) errors.

The book presents the history of pro-life activism in sections (by era)in chronological order from front to back. So the earliest accounts(pre-medieval) are in the first chapters. Each section names, anddescribes the actions of, prominent pro-lifers of that era, presumablyto inspire us today. George seems to admire all of these historicalfigures. At least he certainly doesn't condemn any of them.

Yet, all down through the ages he offers examples of prolifers whoresorted to the use of destructive force to defend innocent life.The earliest such example (from the fourth century) is Basil ofCaesarea who, as George says, "decimated" the death facilities and(on page 29): ...late one evening after Vespers, he and several deaconsfrom the church actually went outside the city to dismantlethe old Caesarean infanticide shrine with their bare hands.

(J.B. note: they didn't have gas or explosives in those days.)

Then on page 42 we see John of Amathus, born toward the endof the sixth century, who tore down the death facilities outside thecity "with his own hands."

Then, during the Renaissance, we see Francis de Girolamo. Onpage 63: Once he burst into a laboratory where parricides werebeing concocted and, like Jesus in the temple, literallydecimated the room, overturning the equipment andscattering the drugs singlehandedly. (emphasis added)Although there is no clear evidence he exerted force, ThomasVillanueva (1500's) is also noteworthy, because, as we see onpage 60: ...when he discovered an abortion cabal operating illicitlyin a nearby city, he flew into a frenzy of righteous indignation.

(J.B.: doesn't that mean he was angry?)

Then, on page 133, George even holds up our hero DietrichBonhoeffer as an example!

Ah, but then we come to page 146. Bear in mind that, since Georgeis our brother-in-Christ, surely he will readily agree that whateveris morally right is always morally right-- yesterday, today, and inall ages. Notwithstanding, somewhere between pages 133 and 146,George slipped up and lost his sense of continuity. He has broughtus up to 1984. Yet, before we point out this little inconsistency,let us take note of another thing.

There is tremendous power in words. Words make people think.

So it's very important to use the right words. Our opponentsunderstand this very well. That's why they never talk about prebornbabies. No, they are always "products of conception" or "fetal tissue".

That's why our enemies never talk about baby-killing. No, it's always"termination of pregnancy" or "reproductive choice". And that's whythey never call their satanic altars what they really are. No,they're always...what?!...clinics! They call them abortion clinics!

Since, as we all know, a clinic is a medical facility where lifeand health are administered to people, and never a place set asidespecifically to kill people, therefore, there is no such thing as anabortion clinic.

Or, if there were such a thing as an abortion clinic, it could onlymean a place where you take wounded babies, for medical treatment,who have survived unsuccessful abortion attempts!

The very phrase "abortion clinic" is dishonest, pro-abortion rhetoric.The borts have to use euphemisms like this, though, to make theirabomination sound more acceptable. Yet, we should never use theirterms to compliment their haunted houses.

So, having noticed the propaganda value for the other side in theirchoice of words, we always try to counteract this ploy by callingtheir facilities abortuaries or abortion chambers. Which is only beinghonest, because that's what they really are. They aren't any kindof clinic.

Now, to be fair, we have to give credit to George for carefullyavoiding the "C" word. He nearly always calls them either abortionchambers or abortuaries (both terms appear in Third Time Around).

While reading the book whenever I saw these terms, I had to smileand nod my approval at George's writing. In fact, he calls the deathcamps "clinics" only once in the whole book. It goes like this (page 146): Sadly, a series of events would seriously minimize theimpact of pro-life forces:!(etc., etc.)!In 1984, a spate of abortion clinic bombings rocksthe pro-life community.!(etc., etc.)

Whoopsie-daisy! Throughout the rest of the book, these placeswhere babies are mutilated and tortured to death are abortuariesor abortion chambers. But the minute some freedom-fighterbombs one, all of a sudden...it's a clinic! George probably didn'tmean it that way, though. It was probably just a slip of the type-writer, as it were.

At the end of each section (dealing with the various eras) Georgedraws conclusions. Then he has a series of topic discussions,presumably to show us lessons we should glean from our forebears.

The topic headings appear in bold print and always in the sameorder: Orthodoxy -- The Church --Servanthood -- Urgency --Patience. (huh?)That's right! The lists include both urgency and patience,and the two appear one right after the other!

Now, how do you figure that? How could anyone, even aChristian, be both urgent and patient at the same time?

Especially with such a matter as child-slaughter? Urgencyand patience are opposites of one another, mutually exclusive!

You can only be in one of those states at a time! Especiallywhen it comes to killing babies! I take my hat off to Georgefor wanting to instill in the church a sense of urgency. But,even if patience was, indeed, a virtue at such a time as this,a time of war, what makes George think there is a need toexhort pro-lifers to patience?

Today's pro-lifers are the most patient people the world has everknown! I mean, as a whole of course. Oh, sure, there are a fewpro-lifers like, for example, Shelley Shannon, Margie Reed, CurtBeseda, and Don Anderson who are impatient, but they are exceedingly,exceedingly rare. Perhaps one in a radius of five hundred miles.Perhaps one out of every 20,000,000 pro-lifers.

99.999% of prolifers are very patient. 99.99% are very, very patient.

And 99.9% of pro-lifers are absolutely (ahem) "PERFECTED" in"patience!" Yes, 99.9% of pro-lifers have "achieved" a state ofsuch "perfect" "patience" that they have waited over twenty-oneyears to pick up their very first picket sign or to make their veryfirst appearance on the sidewalk in front of an abortuary. To thisvery day they have never lifted a finger to help an imperiled baby.

How much more "patient" do we want these people to be?

All this massive, widespread "patience", this wonderful "patience" --that -- that is what has led to 30,000,000 dead babies' bodies beingstrewn over a landscape of more than two decades! There is no needto increase, or to maintain, the level of "patience" among pro-lifers.But if they ever start getting "impatient", please don't tell them.

Please!

Now, let me explain something here. I have to be very careful herewith this patience matter. I study the Bible, and I'm sure most of myreaders do, too. The Bible says a lot about patience, and brother Georgequotes it. He rightly points out that true patience is a fruit of the HolySpirit (Gal 5:22). I believe the Bible like nothing else. I revere theBible like nothing else. I hold it up as the final authority on all matters.I'm a fundamentalist.

This is important. What is patience? And what is impatience?

While observing a man's conduct, by what criteria can we judgehim, and be fair about it, and decide whether he is being patientor impatient? If we see a man responding severely to any givenset of circumstances, is it fair to assess his level of patience onlyby the severity of his response? Aren't we also obligated to examinethe severity of the thing he was responding to?

TBR acknowledges that genuine patience is good. It is a Godly virtue,a fruit of the Holy Spirit. What does that mean? And what does it notmean? For every good thing that God has, Satan has a counterfeit thatbears a striking resemblance. What kind of patience is a fruit of the HolySpirit? What does the devil's counterfeit "patience" look like? Beforewe answer those questions, let me point out a disturbing thing Georgewrote about patience. On page 172

Patience

Victory will not be won in a day, however fervently we act.It will take time, perhaps generations. It has always beenthat way. It always will be. (JB note: Aarrghh!)

In the interim, we are to rest and rely on God's"very great and precious promises". (2 Peter 1:4)

Now, for one thing, that verse doesn't say anything about rest,although the Bible elsewhere does talk about resting in the Lord.But this spiritual rest is no exhortation for the Army of God tophysically recline and restrain themselves in a combat zone whileinnocent civilians (e.g., the babies) are being killed all around.Please bear in mind George's mention of God's promises as welook a little further. On page 173 George quotes Psalms37:7, but not in a context proper for the situation at hand: Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him...

George, George, you've twisted things completely around 180E

You've taken God's promises, and God's commandments, andwaiting patiently for Him, and turned these things around backwards!

The Lord our God has the right to demand that we wait patientlyfor Him to fulfill His promises. But we don't have any right todemand that He wait patiently for us to obey His commandments!

That's where you've got it turned around, George! He commandsus to do justice and rescue the babies! What did He say inProverbs 24:12? Did He promise anything, saying: "I, the Lordyour God, will rescue those being led away to death and will holdback those staggering toward slaughter"? No, no! That's not whatit says! If that was the case we'd have an excuse for laying around,and resting, and waiting for Him to fulfill His promise! But no, itwas not a promise for us; it is an imperative, a commandmentto us!

Rescue those being led away to death, and hold backthose staggering toward slaughter. If you say: "But weknew nothing of this,", does not He who weighs the heartperceive it? Does not He who guards your life know it?But wait a minute!! WARNING!! WARNING!! There are othertimes when the Lord our God does promise to do justice and todeliver widows, the afflicted, and fatherless children out of thehand of the oppressor! WARNING! WARNING!! THE LASTTHING IN THIS WORLD A NATION'S PEOPLE SHOULDWANT TO HEAR IS WORDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD,PROMISING TO DEFEND THEIR FATHERLESS CHILDREN!!!For the moment a people hear that kind of promise from above,their nation is one step away from irremedial destruction! In thathour they must repent with all their hearts and reject all false"patience" with the open, public slaughter of the innocent!

Because in that day the Lord Almighty has begun not only tohold that nation's rulers accountable for the slaughter, but thegeneral public as well!

Yes, the Lord our God is a good God, a long-suffering (patient)God. But the virtue of patience is only virtuous for so long in theface of child-slaughter, and that is not very long. If the Lordpromises a nation's people to rescue their preborn children fromopen, public slaughter, it can be taken as a signal that He is sickand tired of waiting patiently for those people to obey Hiscommandments, and He is sick and tired of those people"waiting patiently" for Him to do what they are supposed to do.

LOOK OUT!!

In Luke 18:8, Jesus asked: Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh,shall He find faith on the earth?

If the Second Advent of Christ the King happened today, oh,He would find lots and lots of faith! Yet, He would find scarcelyany faithfulness! He will require both! To verify for yourself thatHe will also require faithfulness, you need only flip back a few pagesin your Bible to Luke 12:42-46.

Here we return to our book review. George Grant has threechildren. I love George, and I love his children. I wouldn't minddying for them. Now, although George's own children are specialto him, I can't fault him for feeling that way; because I feel the sametoward my own children. We're all like that. It's only natural. Yet,though we feel that way toward our own children, we have to admitthat, objectively, other folks' children are equally worthy of equalprotection.

If George suddenly discovers his children in the clutches of a murderer,and it will require a last-minute, last-ditch effort to save his children'slives, we will not be able to counsel George to be patient with thatmurderer. If George isn't around at the time, and I make the discovery,I will not be patient with that murderer who is about to kill George'schildren. Yet, no matter how severely and impetuously I deal with thekiller, George will not count it as impatience. That's just it. No matterhow special the warmth we feel toward our own children, we mustobjectively notice that these other children are worthy of equal protection.

We must resist every inclination to think inconsistently concerningpreborn babies, because that is why they die.

In order to maintain a proper consistency, we must acknowledgethis: that any degree of "patience" which would have beeninappropriate in our dealing with Nazi Germany fifty years ago,is also therefore inappropriate in our defense of innocent babiestoday. The only thing it would have required for Adolph Hitlerto irreversibly wipe out whole races would have been... "patience"on our part!

During World War II my dad flew around in a B-17 dropping bombson Nazis. He did not bomb them politely. He did not bomb them in"a spirit of meekness and gentleness." He did not bomb them patiently.

Millions upon millions of American men, both Catholic and Protestant,fought injustice during W.W.II. When was the last time you heardany historian characterize these men's conduct as impatient? Underthose circumstances, what did patience and/or impatience have todo with anything?

Perhaps the only thing George would need, to toughen his attitudetoward post-Roe abortions, is to understand that these crimes areacts of genuine warfare. Perhaps he still thinks of "war on theunborn" as a metaphor, and not the real thing. Perhaps he has notyet been able to take the circumstances of Bonhoeffer's day, andsuperimpose them onto today's circumstances, and see they areidentical. The crime is identical, and the victims are, identically,as human. The illegitimacy of those in power is identical. Perhapshe has already come to this understanding. The book was writtenover three years ago. A man adds to his understanding over sucha period.

How victory will come

In concluding this book review let us point out one last dispute.

By now TBR's a little ashamed of seeming to have dealt soseverely with our friend; and now, with this final point we seemto be contradicting him at every turn. Such is not the case.

Our dispute has to do with a passage already visited -- the one onpage 172 saying: "Victory will not be won in a day, howeverfervently we act."

For one thing, victory will never be won until we start thinkingfervently. But our main dispute with the statement is: TBR assertsthat--THE VICTORY OVER ABORTION WILL BE WON INONE DAY! If mainstream Christians continue in their steadfastrefusal to fight this battle, the Lord our God will fight it single-handedly and attain victory in one day. Yet, on the other hand,even if the war is won by human, Christian exertion(blessed and ordained by the Lord, of course) we will still achievevictory in one day. It will not come about by a long, sustainedcampaign. It will not be won by any long, drawn-out strategy.

It will be sudden.

There is no solution to abortion which is entirely political in nature.

No one has yet begun to implement the only strategy which hasany hope of succeeding. Victory will not come until, and unless,there is an explosion of zeal within this dead "church". This canstill happen, believe it or not. But be assured that, one way oranother, we will see victory will within our lifetime, within a fewyears. Be assured, you will see it occur suddenly. We have not yetbegun to fight. It will be won in a day, or, if not in an actual twenty-four hour day, certainly in a very, very short period.

Actually, it seems that George, himself, should have understood this.

A very curious thing about Third Time Around is that, while Georgemakes repeated calls for patience, and claims that victory "will taketime, perhaps generations", yet, on page 157, he offers a quote fromHilaire Belloc which contradicts George's prediction and fully supportsTBR's assertion that victory will come utterly and suddenly.

Belloc said: In history's mixture of good and evil, the thing weshould note -- the thing the historians will note withamazement -- is the profundity and the rapidity of change.(emphasis added)

Forget about the power of the Feds. Just look at abortion, itself.

Just look at abortionists. Because of the enormity and magnitudeof abortion, and because of the terrible, great zeal required of anabortionist to be able to tear a child's limbs off -- all this, coupledwith the cooperation and protection of Washington, D.C. -- becauseof all these things, this war cannot be won incrementally, in stages.

It's all or nothing. To the extent any strategy depends on victory beingincremental, it will be a waste of time. (Not that it is a waste of timeto save those few babies whom we can save right now.) Just as thechild's life, so is the war, itself. It's all or nothing. A child has beenappointed to die tomorrow morning. Either you will save that child'slife completely and abruptly, or not at all. You cannot save his or herlife little by little. The overall war is the same way. You will only seeabortion, as a matter of public policy, stopped completely and abruptly.The abomination will be uprooted all at once by a furious God or afurious Church. There is no other way. Until you hold steadfastlyto this vision, you will find little encouragement in how you are ableto interpret unfolding events, and your efforts may not be focusedwhere they will be most effective.

If abortion is stopped only by the Lord's Hand, it will beaccompanied by a devastating, punishing cataclysm (perhaps theGreat Tribulation). But if we stop it (in blessed submission to theLord), it will not be some major turn of events which serves as animpetus to bring the whole, rotting institution of abortion crashingdown. It will be some small thing that causes a sudden uproar inChristendom, thus bringing about an upheaval, an avalanche, asit were.

As wild as this may sound, an example of some such small thingbecoming like a snowball rolling down hill is: One simple tactic thatcould end abortion...what if a few, brave Christians in some statelegislature sponsored a bill forbidding any federally funded abortuaryfrom slaughtering children in the process of satanic ritual, on the basisthat separation of church and state prohibits tax support of Satanworship?

What would happen? How would preborn children's enemies(our nation's domestic enemies) react to this confrontation?

What kind of public statements would issue from "Planned Parenthood",N.O.W., etc.? These hell-and-death-mongers adamantly refuse anycompromise with their "power" (as opposed to right) to kill babies.That's just it -- in this scenario they could infuriate the public,especially Christians, however they respond.

How would the federal court system handle it [if it even got thatfar (after all the uproar)]? See what I mean? However they ruled,it might strengthen our position tremendously. If they sided withus, it would help; and if they came out against us, it would helpeven more! Because if they upheld the legislation, forbiddingchild-slaughter in the course of Satan-worship, the move couldso keenly focus the church's attention on the spiritually wickeddimension of abortion that she might then be aroused to take anactive, militant stand against this crime being committed under anycircumstances. Whereas, if the courts struck down the law andofficially endorsed child-sacrifice in the course of Satan-worship,we could hope that however many real men were left in Christianitywould mobilize. If no such mobilization took place we would knowwith certainty that the (ha ha) "church" had become irredeemablysuperficial, hollow, and dead. Then we would know we had lostthe war irretrievably and that there was no longer the slightest hopeof saving our nation from Divine wrath.

Although at first we offered this idea only as a hypotheticalexample of how abortion will be stopped by some small thing --a straw that breaks the camel's back -- the more we think aboutit, the more TBR wants to set if forth as a serious proposal. If itsounds silly and/or futile, just compare it to other "antiabortion"legislation which has, in fact, been enacted in recent years. It couldnot be more bizarre than a parental notification law, could it?Try it. If it doesn't work, babies will be killed. But if you don'teven try it, what will happen? Babies will be killed. So what doyou have to lose by trying it? Nothing.

If a few, brave, Christian state legislators brought it to the floor fora full vote, it would pass easily, if not unanimously. How manyother legislators would vote against it, going on public record assaying: "I believe abortions should be allowed to be done duringsatanic rituals and paid for with tax dollars"?

AN APOLOGY TO GEORGE GRANT

By the time I had twice hand-written all the preceding thousandsof words in this issue, I realized I had been unfairly severe, at onepoint, in my renunciation of George's call for patience. Havingwritten night and day for the past several days, I don't have theheart to go back and redo it.

But the main reason for not redoing it is that I still stand byeverything I said about the irrelevance of patience and/or impatiencein the matter of saving children from death by torture. What Iapologize to George for is seeming to imply that, by his call for"patience", he is offering anyone an excuse for not taking immediateaction. I'm sure that's not what he means at all. Unquestionably,in my mind, George's intention is to call us all immediately intoactivism and only then, in the midst of sustained activism, to waitpatiently for results.

I still refute that position, for all the reasons already explained,plus two more. For one thing, people won't take it that way. Thosepeople whom George and I most want to reach -- the arm-chairprolifers and the couch potatoes who have never done anythingbeyond one of those silly, childish, meaningless "life chains"(if even that much) -- these people will jump on any call for"patience" as an excuse.

Uh-oh. I just thought of another possible interpretation of George'scall, which, in the case that is what he really means, I owe hima more unequivocal apology. If by "patience" he means only"steadfastness", then I have no problem with his position. If hemeans only to encourage activists not to give up when they do notimmediately see statistically spectacular results, then I agree withhis position wholeheartedly and offer my sincerest apology.